The Cross endorsed a barbaric practice
By Michael Runyan ~
Christians luxuriate in the romantic idea that Jesus died on the cross as a way to vicariously accept the penalty for their sins, thus providing them access to heaven. What is commonly overlooked is that by accepting this theology one is by default acquiescing to the legitimacy of the ancient practice of killing innocent animals as a means to gain propitiation from the gods. The Cross blatantly continued a theme that no longer makes sense nor meets modern moral or ethical standards.
In other words, to be a Christian and also be consistent, you have to agree that at one time God ordered or accepted the sacrifice of animals as the principal method for forgiving human sin. After all, Jesus was the ultimate ‘animal sacrifice’ that obviated the need to continue the practice going forward. It would seem far more likely that the idea of sacrificing animals to appease the gods originated in human rather than divine minds (and indeed this practice preceded biblical times). Thus, the central dogma of Christianity is mired in this same primitive conceptualization -- one that lets us know that it, too, is a product of human minds.
Christianity could have escaped this embarrassing problem by getting rid of the crucifixion, it wasn’t needed. Instead, separate itself from the idea of sacrificing innocent life. End the gospel as follows:
When Jesus had finished his meal, he looked upon his disciples with compassion and said, ‘My mission is now at an end and I will return to my father. Go now and spread the words that I have spoken. Those who heed my words will receive great reward in the life to come.’ With that, Jesus
suddenly became invisible and the disciples were left bewildered, but yet emboldened to spread the word to the rest of the world.
This would have solved two problems: getting rid of the ridiculous idea of killing innocent life to forgive the guilty and eliminating the dogma that what a person believes is more important than what they do.
Christians luxuriate in the romantic idea that Jesus died on the cross as a way to vicariously accept the penalty for their sins, thus providing them access to heaven. What is commonly overlooked is that by accepting this theology one is by default acquiescing to the legitimacy of the ancient practice of killing innocent animals as a means to gain propitiation from the gods. The Cross blatantly continued a theme that no longer makes sense nor meets modern moral or ethical standards.
In other words, to be a Christian and also be consistent, you have to agree that at one time God ordered or accepted the sacrifice of animals as the principal method for forgiving human sin. After all, Jesus was the ultimate ‘animal sacrifice’ that obviated the need to continue the practice going forward. It would seem far more likely that the idea of sacrificing animals to appease the gods originated in human rather than divine minds (and indeed this practice preceded biblical times). Thus, the central dogma of Christianity is mired in this same primitive conceptualization -- one that lets us know that it, too, is a product of human minds.
Christianity could have escaped this embarrassing problem by getting rid of the crucifixion, it wasn’t needed. Instead, separate itself from the idea of sacrificing innocent life. End the gospel as follows:
When Jesus had finished his meal, he looked upon his disciples with compassion and said, ‘My mission is now at an end and I will return to my father. Go now and spread the words that I have spoken. Those who heed my words will receive great reward in the life to come.’ With that, Jesus
suddenly became invisible and the disciples were left bewildered, but yet emboldened to spread the word to the rest of the world.
This would have solved two problems: getting rid of the ridiculous idea of killing innocent life to forgive the guilty and eliminating the dogma that what a person believes is more important than what they do.
Comments
Post a Comment